STATE OF H.P. v. MUSHTAQ AHMAD

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 424

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

STATE OF H.P. v. MUSHTAQ AHMAD.pdf

Judgment text

+- " STATE OF H. P. v. MUSHTAQ AHMAD MARCH 26, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYATANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ. ] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--s. 378(3)-Application seeking leave to appeal-Against order of acquittal-Summary dismissal of the application by High Court-On appeal, held: Absence ofreason has rendered the order ofHigh Court as not sustainable-However, in view of nature of finding recorded by trial court, the case cannot be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136. Judgment-Need to give reasons-Held: right to reason is an indispensable part ofa sound judicial system-Reasons introduce clarity in an otder-They are indicative of an application of mind by the Judicial forum-One ofthe statutory requirements ofnatural justice is speaking out reasons for the order made-Absence ofreasons, render it impossible for the Court to perform its appellate power or power ofjudicial review in adjullging the validity of the decision.

Present Special Leave Petition is against the Order of High Court in an application under section 378(3) Cr. P. C. against order ofacquittal, whereby it had·refused to grant leave to file appeal summarily, without assigning any reason. \. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration ofjustice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative ofan application ofits mind, all the more when its order is amenable .. ,,... _' to further avenue ofchallenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable (Para 3) (426-B-C) STATEOF H. P. v. MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J. ] 425 State of U. P.

v. Rattan and Ors. , (2001) 10 SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215 and ' Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. , [1987] 2 SCC 222, relied on. Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 1 All E. R. 1148 and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974) LCR 120, referred to. 2. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power ofjudicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision, Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.

Another rationale is that the effected party can know why the decision had gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. (Para 4) [426-F-G; 427-A) State ofPunjab v. Bhag Singh, [2004) 1 SCC 547, relied on. 3. However, in view of the nature ofthe findings recorded by trial court this is not a fit case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. [Para 5] (427-C] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition for Special Leave to ) Appeal (Crl. ) No. 1102 of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 27. 09. 2006 of the High Court ofHimachal Pradesh at Shimla in Cr. M. P. (M) No. 593 of2006. J. S. Attri for the Petitioner. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l.

Challenge in this special leave petition is f to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). +- 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the application was dismissed ,.. summarily without indicating any reason. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has in many cases deprecated the practice of such dismissal. 3. The High Court has not given any reasons for refusing to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal, and seems to have been completely oblivious to the fact that by such refusal, a close scrutiny of the order of acquittal, by the appellate forum, has been lost once and for all. The manner in which appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by the High Court leaves much to be desired. Reasons introduce clarity in an order.

On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of U. P. v. Battan and Ors. , [2001] IO SCC 607. About two decades back in State ofMaharashtra v. Vithal Rao Prilirao Chawan, AIR (1982) SC 1215 the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. , [1987] 2 SCC 222.

Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pretext by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in State, oblivious to A;rticle 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 4. Even in respect ofadministrative orders Lord Denning M. R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, [1971] 1 All E. R. 1148 observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120 it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial ofjustice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.

The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perfonn their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, ~·.. ~ r reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the + STATEOFH. P. v. MUSHTAQAHMAD[PASAYAT,J. ) 427 decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. (See State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh, [2004] 1 sec 547). 5.

In the background of what has been stated in Bhag Singh's case (supra) the grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner-State about the manner in which the petition has been dismissed is unexceptionable. But we have perused the judgment of the trial Court. Considering the nature of the findings recorded we do not consider this to be a fit case where exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is called for. The petition is accordingly dismissed. K. K. T. SLP dismissed. )